Hey, Shaved Ice,
Are you still in SF at Bragg? I briefly spent some time in 1/325 when I got back from 2ID, until I got my orders straightened out to get back behind the wire. Bragg was a nice place to work, but I was happy to get back to Lewis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaved Ice
I'll take the kid that is willing to serve but needs a little work over a in-shape, smart model-citizen who is a selfish pr!ck and / or a coward.
|
Agreed. I was simply pointing out that even among the ranks of the Regular Army, plenty of fat and/or out-of-shape soldiers, still needing "a little work."
Quote:
|
I'd rather have a fat kid setting up my request for artillery support than someone who is stoned.
|
I remember the rampant alcoholism of the '90s. There was the stigma against Vietnam-era soldiering (i.e. being stoned in uniform) plus the new drug tests.
What we got in exchange were soldiers who were drunk and dehydrated (a hazard in the field). Lots of soldiers just drunk, everywhere. In a lot of units, CQ was just an excuse to lock yourself into the company office and get drunk--you knew you got all next day to sleep it off.
The stresses of military life will affect people in different ways. It's a perennial problem.
Quote:
|
I don't care if the guy operating the computer terminal for the predator overhead is 30 pounds overweight if he drops the munition where I tell him to. I don't care if my cook is 30 pounds overweight as long as he can cook.
|
Point taken. So is a 71L allowed to get fat when he is working in a records room at DFAS in Indianapolis but has to lose weight suddenly when he is PCSed to work in PAC at an infantry battalion?
There is also the argument that a malnourished, dehydrated, overweight soldier won't be able to have the concentration, attention-span, or endurance to sit behind that computer terminal at FDC for 16 hours and do his job correctly.
Quote:
|
And to all of you fellow combat arms vets, don't try to feed me the line that every soldier is an infantryman first. You know that has never been the case.
|
True. The infantry always has its own standards, from its own Basic to its own APFT standards, etc. Agreed.
Although, when I was in Korea, I was in a mech inf battalion. Lots of those guys just got out of shape. We spent out garrison days in the motor pool and our field time in tracks. So when they failed their APFT by infantry standards but still passed DA standards........that was a problem for commanders. Do you keep a soldier that can do the job, such as it was (being more like a tanker than a grunt), or do you chapter him out or reassign him to a support unit? It took a lot more than that to get out of Korea.
I imagine that commanders in Iraq still have the same challenge.
(Who is saying that every soldier is an infantryman first? That sounds a lot like that Marine Corps mantra "Every Marine a rifleman!" kind of stuff. The Marines can say that because the Navy does their support.)
Quote:
|
These soldiers volunteered during a time of war to protect you. I signed up when we were at peace. I have a huge amount of respect for those who signed up post 911. You all owe them more respect than you are giving here.
|
I work with young people in college. Even those not wearing the uniform have a very different attitude about the wars than older generations. These kids watched the Twin Towers fall live in homeroom when they were in middle school, or younger. And they all have a friend, relative, former classmate, etc. who has served there. They have a patriotism and conviction that runs deep. They all have their own opinions on what our country should do, as young people do, but they do care.
The AF recruiting campaigns are doing a nice job of tapping into that and combining the idea of service with their interests.
